William Lane Craig's Two Questions:Part I

Answering WLC's two fundamental questions about abortion.

Christian superstar philosopher, theologian, and debater William Lane Craig has an opinion on almost anything, and these are almost always interesting.  When it is a philosophical matter, Catholics can usually agree.  Some of his theology is Protestant, though, and he considers himself a Monothelite.  However, in the area of abortion, he provides two questions that, when answered rightly, are completely devastating to the pro-abortion position.  These two questions are:

1. Do human beings possess intrinsic moral value?

2. Is the developing fetus a human being? {1}

I think it is very important to provide arguments to support an affirmative answer to each of these questions.  An essay will be devoted to each one.

What is intrinsic moral value?  “The intrinsic value of something is said to be the value that that thing has ‘in itself,’ or ‘for its own sake,’ or ‘as such,’ or ‘in its own right.’” {2}  If humans do truly possess this intrinsic value, then there are grounds for condemning certain objective evils that might adversely affect the common good. {3}  This would explain why some events (such as the Holocaust) are universally condemned by most conscientious people and even non-believers.

However, if human intrinsic moral value is true, then this value must come from somewhere.  The only reasonable place from which this value can come is due to man’s creation in the image of God.  Many anti-abortion apologists insist that this discussion can be held without mention of God or religion as a necessary foundation.  I disagree.  While one might not need to defend the truth of the Catholic religion in this context, it is important to show that God does play a role and be prepared to defend the basic tenets of Christianity (as found in the Apostle’s Creed, for instance) if needed.

For example, not only is God the source of moral value, but he is also the source of morality itself.  As delineated by Dr. Craig, the moral argument is as follows:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists. {4}

Without much philosophical thought, it ought to be evident that objective moral values do exist, as everybody, regardless of culture and background, seems to hold a few universal moral principles.  These principles, as Craig explains, would be morally binding even if no one believed in them. {5}

The consequence of morality without a theistic foundation is not so much a different kind of morality as it is a lack of morality.  This would devolve into an extremely subjective morality such as utilitarianism.  Utilitarian philosophy is the underpinning of many societal ills, such as physician-assisted suicide (mercy killing), abortion, and related issues.  Doing what results in the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people sounds like a good thing, but is really not what it seems to be.  Utilitarians confuse a very important fundamental difference: pleasure versus happiness.  The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy tells us that pleasure is “affective positivity” and good feelings. {6}  A morality based on this is not morality at all.  After all, I’m sure we could all name a number of possible actions that are considered morally wrong under traditional moral norms, but that certainly bring pleasure.  Morality can be determined, to some extent, through the natural law, or that which can be known through reason.  The natural law, which even atheists use, comes from God, as Aquinas explains. {7}  After all, the natural law is derived from the eternal law, which comes from God.

We know from the natural law that it is wrong to kill innocent human life.  The reason we know that is because we can recognize their intrinsic moral value.  Even if one is an atheist or a utilitarian, he can still recognize that people have worth, but this knowledge is due to the natural law they themselves deny by their denial of God’s existence.  Thus, the correct answer to Dr. Craig’s is the affirmative.

The only response to this is to argue that human life has no value.  Surprisingly, someone does.  Andrew Buhrmann penned an article entitled “Euthanasia and Intrinsic Value of Life”, and he begins it by saying: “Life in itself has no specific value to us, other than as the way we can have experiences, and these experiences are what we find to be valuable”. {8}  Buhrmann is writing about euthanasia, but it too is the ending of innocent human life, and his arguments could be applied to the unborn.  He argues that intrinsic value comes from being able to have meaningful life experiences.  If one cannot have those life experiences, they cannot be said to be living a valuable life.  Just as the vegetative human cannot experience life, and thus has no value, so too do the unborn have no value because they cannot experience life.

I am not sure how Buhrmann would define these experiences.  It seems that even in a coma, the patient’s brain would be involuntarily responsive to stimuli (such as a pin prick and the like), but I suppose Buhrmann is requiring that these experiences be had by fully conscious humans that can process them and voluntarily react in return.  That argument seems flawed on a number of different levels.  First, not all experiences are pleasant.  Is value based on the number of pleasant experiences or just experiences in general?  It seems that Buhrmann is arguing it is based on pleasant experiences, which would mean that the life of a menial laborer has no value.  Buhrmann anticipates this objection, and says that a coal miner (for example) has the “potential to live a better quality level, but he is also not likely to”.  And there is the gaping hole.  We cannot judge the unborn’s intrinsic moral value based on their experience because they have the potential to live a valuable life by this measurement.  Judging moral value according to Buhrmann’s method seems to me to be begging the question, or assuming what he wants to prove.

In the next essay, we will answer the question of whether the unborn are human, using philosophical arguments supported by scientific facts.  If you want to read more of my articles, please check out catholic365.com and my personal blog The Catholic Armchair Philosopher.

God love you!

__________

1. William Lane Craig, “Abortion and Presidential Politics”, at Reasonable Faith (16 June 2008), at reasonablefaith.org.

2. Michael J. Zimmerman and Ben Bradley, “Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Value”, at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (9 January 2019), at plato.stanford.edu.

3. Luke Nix, “Do Humans Have Intrinsic Value?”, at CrossExamined (28 September 2019), at crossexamined.org.

4. William Lane Craig, “Moral Argument (Part 1)”, at Reasonable Faith (15 October 2007), at reasonablefaith.org.

5. Craig, “Moral Argument”, at reasonablefaith.org.

6. Leonard Katz, “Pleasure”, at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (17 June 2016), at plato.stanford.edu.

7. See Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologica I-II, q. 94, at New Advent, at newadvent.org.

8. Andrew Buhrmann, “Euthanasia and Intrinsic Value of Life”, at Cal State East Bay (2008), at csueastbay.edu.